Meta-analysis of randomized trials on single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

Perioperative pain management for appendicectomy: A systematic review and Procedure-specific Postoperative Pain Management recommendations

BACKGROUND

Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations by assessing the available literature for optimal pain management after appendicectomy.

DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES

This systematic review-based guideline was conducted according to the PROSPECT methodology. Relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the English language from January 1999 to October 2022 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases using PRISMA search protocols.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies on adults and children. If articles reported combined data from different surgeries, they had to include specific information about appendicectomies. Studies needed to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numerical rating scale (NRS). Studies that did not report the precise appendicectomy technique were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of 1388 studies, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Based on evidence and consensus, the PROSPECT members agreed that basic analgesics [paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] should be administered perioperatively for open and laparoscopic appendicectomies. A laparoscopic approach is preferred because of lower pain scores. Additional recommendations for laparoscopic appendicectomies include a three-port laparoscopic approach and the instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic. For open appendicectomy, a preoperative unilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended. If not possible, preincisional infiltration with local anaesthetics is an alternative. Opioids should only be used as rescue analgesia. Limited evidence exists for TAP block in laparoscopic appendicectomy, analgesic adjuvants for TAP block, continuous wound infiltration after open appendicectomy and preoperative ketamine and dexamethasone. Recommendations apply to children and adults.

CONCLUSION

This review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for open and laparoscopic appendicectomy. Further randomised controlled trials should evaluate the use of regional analgesia and wound infiltrations with adequate baseline analgesia, especially during the recommended conventional three-port approach.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration No. CRD42023387994).

Laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy with laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for superior mesenteric artery syndrome with dysphagia: a case report

Background

Superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome denotes a mechanical duodenal obstruction between the SMA and aorta. Total parenteral or enteral nutrition is the treatment of choice. However, surgical intervention is indicated if the patient’s condition does not improve with conservative treatment. Here, we describe a case of SMA syndrome with dysphagia treated by laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy with laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Case presentation

A 64-year-old man was admitted to another hospital because of appetite loss and vomiting. There, he was diagnosed as having superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome after appropriate investigation. He had had a cerebral infarction at age 57 years, since which he had lived in social housing because of complications of that infarction. A nasogastric tube was inserted into the third portion of the duodenum beyond the constricted section. He was discharged 2 months after admission his condition having improved. He was subsequently referred to our hospital for gastrostomy because the nasogastric tube had been in place for a long time and his condition had not improved. Additionally, gastrostomy was needed as a route for enteral nutrition because he had dysphagia, which had persisted despite attempts at rehabilitation, restricting his food intake to small amounts. Computed tomography (CT) revealed compression of the third portion of the duodenum between the SMA and aorta. After obtaining informed consent, we planned an operative procedure. We performed laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy under general anesthesia, followed by laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. The operation time was 156 min and there was little blood loss. Contrast radiography on postoperative day 3 revealed no evidence of leakage or stenosis. Enteral nutrition via the gastrostomy was started. He was discharged from our hospital on the 27th postoperative day. The gastrostomy was well tolerated and there has been no evidence of recurrence of SMA syndrome during follow-up.

Conclusion

Gastrostomy is often performed to provide a route for administering enteral nutrition in patients with dysphagia. Development of SMA syndrome in patients with dysphagia necessitates operative management of the obstruction. Here, we describe a case of SMA syndrome with dysphagia treated by laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy with laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Paratubal Cystectomy in a Pregnant Woman Using the Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) Technique

Introduction

The proliferation of prenatal ultrasound has enhanced the detection of adnexal masses during pregnancy. The presentation necessitates a clear approach to investigation and treatment that balances both maternal and fetal risk. Laparoscopy is a safe approach to surgical management in the pregnant patient, and SILS may contribute to minimising perioperative complications. Case Presentation. We present the case of a 21-year-old female in her second trimester of pregnancy presenting with a large 20 cm right adnexal cyst. We proceeded with laparoscopic cystectomy via the SILS technique. There were no intraoperative complications, and she recovered well postoperatively.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic resection of adnexal lesions is safe during pregnancy and should be favoured over the open approach. SILS minimises incision sites and has potential for reduction in perioperative morbidity.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Minimal-invasive surgery has gained wide acceptance in colorectal surgery. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was designed to minimize surgical trauma and improve postoperative outcome. However, the role of SILS in ileostomy formation is unclear.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study 26 patients were included. Six patients were operated with SILS and 20 with conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy. We retrospectively evaluated patient charts for baseline characteristics including prior abdominal surgeries and combination of surgeries. Our primary efficacy objectives were operation time and postoperative hospitalization days. Our safety objectives included the prevalence of postoperative pain, parastomal hernia, incisional hernia, perforation, wound infection, ileus, and infections in general.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics including previous abdominal surgery and concomitant surgeries were comparable in both groups. Total operation time using SILS (37.5 ± 6.2 min [mean ± SD]), compared to laparoscopic surgery (82.2 ± 54.8 min [mean ± SD]) was significantly shorter (p = 0.0002). In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with combined surgery, ileostomy formation by SILS was shorter (36.5 ± 6.2 min [mean ± SD]), compared to laparoscopy (59.7 ± 28.7 min [mean ± SD]; p = 0.024). Length of postoperative stay was not statistically different between the groups (SILS: 5.5 ± 2.4 days [mean ± SD]; laparoscopic: 13.8 ± 17.3 days [mean ± SD], p = 0.193). Postoperative complication rates were low and comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Placement of a loop ileostomy using SILS technique not only reduces surgical trauma but also operation time without affecting postoperative hospital stay or postoperative complication rates. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for ileostomy is an appealing approach for ileostomy in selected patients.

Left Paraduodenal Hernia Treated With Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery: Report of a Case

Paraduodenal hernia is traditionally repaired via conventional laparotomy. Recently, several reports described the repair of paraduodenal hernia via laparoscopic surgery with multiple ports. Due to development of the technique and devices for laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been applied to various operations, including cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and procedures for colorectal cancer. Here, we report treatment of a left paraduodenal hernia via SILS. A 23-year-old man presented with abrupt onset of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. Computed tomography revealed a mass of intestinal loops enveloped by a thin capsule on the left of the abdominal cavity. Blood circulation in the jejunal loops was preserved, and no dilatation of the jejunum was observed. Physical and radiographic examination indicated the possibility of left paraduodenal hernia; we performed paraduodenal hernia repair using SILS. After we confirmed that there was no strangulation or gangrenous change in the bowel on laparoscopic examination, we reduced the incarcerated jejunum loops via an atraumatic method. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged 8 days after the operation. This disease affects relatively young patients, rendering this operation attractive from the viewpoint of cosmetic benefits and minimal invasion. Paraduodenal hernia repair via SILS is feasible, safe, and may constitute an alternative method for paraduodenal hernia without necrotic change.

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using a needle-type grasping forceps for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: Case series

•

Acute appendicitis is the most common between the ages of 10 and 20 years.

•

Our centre performed a new technology of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using a needle-type grasping forceps (SLAN).

•

SLAN has advantages of favourable cosmetic results, minimal trauma, and enhanced postoperative recovery.

Introduction

Single-port laparoscopy has been used in any areas of surgery, including appendectomy, to reduce the operative stress and enhance postoperative recovery procedure. This paper introduces our attempt to perform single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using conventional laparoscoopic instruments and a needle-type grasping forceps (SLAN), which has dominant advantage in cosmetic appearance.

Methods

We report six pediatric patients who underwent SLAN for uncomplicated appendicitis from April to November 2019. SLAN was performed transumbilically, while conventional laparoscopic instruments and needle-type grasping forceps were both used. After routine intracorporeal appendectomy was completed, the pathological appendix was extracted through the single-port site, while a 10 mm trocar was used to avoid incision infectious. Clinical data and postoperative follow-up data were collected and analyzed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of this novel technique.

Results

SLAN was successfully performed in all six pediatric patients. The median operative time, first exhaust time after surgery, pain score of postoperative day 1, and postoperative hospital stay were 69 (range, 50−85) min, 1.33 (range, 1–2) d, 0.83 (range, 0–3) score, 1.5 (range, 1–2) d, respectively. Neither intraoperative nor postoperative complications were noted, while no incision infectious, adhesive intestinal obstruction, and abdominal abscess were observed with 2–9 months follow up.

Discussion

Though there are many methods to perform single-port laparoscopic appendectomy, the use of needle grasping forceps in laparoscopic appendectomy has been confirmed a new choice for uncomplicated appendicitis in children.

Conclusion

SLAN is a feasible and safe technique to treat acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. To be emphasized, surgeons must strictly grasp the indications for this surgery.

Long-term and short-term surgical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic hepatectomy on anterolateral liver segments

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection yields improved short-term surgical outcomes, whereas the reports about clinical benefits of single-incision laparoscopic hepatectomy (SILH) are scarce. This retrospective study is to compare the surgical outcomes of SILH with those of multi-incision laparoscopic hepatectomy (MILH).

METHODS

The study included 54 patients who had undergone SILH and 184 patients who had undergone MILH between January 2010 and December 2017. Short-term outcomes were compared in those of patients who underwent left lateral sectionectomy and partial hepatectomy of segment 5-6. A subgroup analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was also performed for long-term outcome comparisons.

RESULTS

In those of patients who underwent left lateral sectionectomy, SILH group had less chronic hepatitis B (15.2 vs. 45.8%; p = 0.004), less liver cirrhosis (12.1 vs. 50.0%; p = 0.002), less tumor proximal to major vessel (6.1 vs. 29.2%; p = 0.018), shorter surgical time (113.2 ± 37.9 vs. 146.0 ± 50.5 min; p = 0.007), and shorter postoperative hospital stays (4.4 ± 1.1 vs. 5.4 ± 1.3 days; p = 0.002) compared with MILH group. In those of patients with tumor located at segment 5-6, no significant differences were observed in surgical time, blood loss, complications, and mortality. Single-incision laparoscopic partial hepatectomy was only associated with wider surgical margins (11.8 ± 7.0 vs. 5.3 ± 5.2 mm; p = 0.003). In the HCC subgroup, SILH had similar 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival and 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival rates compared with patients who had undergone MILH.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic liver resection for left lateral sectionectomy and partial hepatectomy for segment 5-6. In selected patients within the group and by experienced surgical team, the SILH technique results in comparable short-term surgical outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes.

Dual-Incision Laparoscopic Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy: Merits Compared to the Conventional Method

BACKGROUND

Herein, we assess the safety and feasibility of dual-incision laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (DILSPDP) through lateral approach with reduced trocars for benign and low-grade malignancy in pancreas tail. We compare DILSPDP with surgical outcomes of conventional laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP).

METHODS

Patients with benign pancreas tail mass that had been scheduled for LSPDP were selected to undergo DILSPDP. These patients had spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with the dissection in lateral-to-medial fashion using a multichannel trocar in the right lateral decubitus position of patient. We compared the demographics and operative outcomes of DILSPDP with those of conventional LSPDP which was performed with dissection in medial-to-lateral fashion using four or five trocars in supine position.

RESULTS

Twenty two cases of DILSPDP and 26 cases of conventional LSPDP were reviewed. There was no difference in terms of demographic features including diagnosis or tumor size, although the location of the tumor was fundamentally different between the two groups. Significantly shorter operative times and reduced blood loss were observed in DILSPDP group (p = 0.004 and 0.011, respectively) and the preservation of splenic vessels was more successful with DILSPDP than conventional surgery (95.5% vs. 65.4%, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

DILSPDP appears to be a feasible method of spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy for benign or low-malignancy of pancreas tail and is accompanied by advantages in terms of splenic vessel preservation and reduced parietal trauma.

Development of a Two Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy Technique at a Rural Hospital

Background

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is most commonly performed using two 5-mm and one 10/12-mm ports. Various attempts to reduce the number and size of ports have been made and new technologies such as single port LA have been introduced. Appendix and mesoappendix are usually divided with a stapler or energy device with electrocautery, clips, and endoloop being cheaper options.

Patients and Methods

This study includes 51 consecutive LAs performed at a rural hospital. Patients were divided into 4 groups: group 1 was the standard technique group (n=12), group 2 served as a “try-out” (n=12), group 3 served as feasibility group (n=12), and group 4 was the final patient cohort in which the optimized technique was preferably used (n=15).

Results

Median age of the study cohort was 35.4 (range: 6.2-80.6) years, and 55% of patients were male. Whereas in G1 all patients had standard port placement (10/12-mm, 2x5-mm), in an increasing number of patients in G2-4 only two 5-mm ports and the 2.3-mm Teleflex minigrasper were inserted. Usage of staplers and/or energy devices was reduced from 100% in G1 to 20% in G4, and in the majority of cases both the appendix and the vascular pedicle were secured with an endoloop. The new technique did not add time to the procedure or total OR time. No stump-leaks or surgical site infections were encountered in this series, and there were no conversions to open surgery. Cost savings when not using a stapler or energy device are approximately 400$ per case; the minigrasper added approximately 200$ to the case.

Discussion

LA with use of two ports and a portless needle grasper is feasible in the majority of cases and was associated with high patient satisfaction and excellent cosmetic results. Avoiding energy devices and staplers is cost saving; the endoloop securely controls appendix and mesoappendix.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.

A Randomized Trial to Compare the Conventional Three-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy Procedure to Single-Incision and One-Puncture Procedure That Was Safe and Feasible, Even for Surgeons in Training

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has emerged; however, the procedures might be complicated for trainees. We compared the clinical outcomes of conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) and single-incision and one-puncture laparoscopic appendectomy (SIOPLA) by attending pediatric surgeons (APSs) and surgeons in training (SITs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the clinical outcomes of 72 randomized laparoscopic appendectomies that were consecutively performed by SITs and APSs for a 2-year period. The cases were categorized according to type of surgeon. Finally, 10 CLA and 18 SIOPLA procedures were performed by SITs, and 24 CLA and 20 SIOPLA procedures were performed by APSs. The operative time, blood loss, analgesic use, complications, and hospital stay were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in any of the evaluation points between CLA and SIOPLA.

CONCLUSIONS

SIOPLA is not inferior operation to CLA, and the postoperative outcomes of SIOPLA were satisfactory. Thus, SIOPLA was safe and feasible for young surgeons to perform.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only exploring the role of single incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resections

Background

The objective of this article is to evaluate the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic surgery (MILS) for colorectal resections.

Methods

The data retrieved from the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing SILS versus MILS for colorectal resections was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The combined outcome of dichotomous data was represented as risk ratio (RR) and continuous data was shown as standardized mean difference (SMD).

Results

Five RCTs on 525 patients reported the colorectal resections by SILS versus MILS technique. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the operation time (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.52; z=1.28; P=0.20), length of in-patient stay (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.51 to 0.14; z=1.10; P=0.27) and lymph node harvesting (SMD, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.33; z=0.76; P=0.45) were comparable between both techniques. Furthermore, post-operative complications (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.54; z=0.02; P=0.99), post-operative mortality, surgical site infection rate (RR, 3.00; 95% CI, 0.13-70.92; z=0.68; P=0.50), anastomotic leak rate (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.11-1.63; z=1.24; P=0.21), conversion rate (P=0.13) and re-operation rate (P=0.43) were also statistically similar following SILS and MILS.

Conclusions

SILS failed to demonstrate any superiority over MILS for colorectal resections in all post-operative surgical outcomes.

Clinical advantages of single port laparoscopic hepatectomy

AIM

To evaluate the clinical advantages of single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy (SPLH) compare to multi-port laparoscopic hepatectomy (MPLH).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 246 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection between January 2008 and December 2015 at our hospital. We divided the surgical technique into two groups; SPLH and MPLH. We performed laparoscopic liver resection for both benign and malignant disease. Major hepatectomy such as right and left hepatectomy was also done with sufficient disease-free margin. The operative time, the volume of blood loss, transfusion rate, and the conversion rate to MPLH or open surgery was evaluated. The post-operative parameters included the meal start date after operation, the number of postoperative days spent in the hospital, and surgical complications was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 246 patients, 155 patients underwent SPLH and 91 patients underwent MPLH. Conversion rate was 22.6% in SPLH and 19.8% in MPLH (P = 0.358). We performed major hepatectomy, which was defined as resection of more than 2 sections, in 13.5% of patients in the SPLH group and in 13.3% of patients in the MPLH group (P = 0.962). Mean operative time was 136.9 ± 89.2 min in the SPLH group and 231.2 ± 149.7 min in the MPLH group (P < 0.001). The amount of blood loss was 385.1 ± 409.3 mL in the SPLH group and 559.9 ± 624.9 mL in the MPLH group (P = 0.016). The safety resection margin did not show a significant difference (0.84 ± 0.84 cm in SPLH vs 1.04 ± 1.22 cm in MPLH, P = 0.704). Enteral feeding was started earlier in the SPLH group (1.06 ± 0.27 d after operation) than in the MPLH group (1.63 ± 1.27 d) (P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay after operation was non-significantly shorter in the SPLH group than in the MPLH group (7.82 ± 2.79 d vs 7.97 ± 3.69 d, P = 0.744). The complication rate was not significantly different (P = 0.397) and there was no major perioperative complication or mortality case in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Single-port laparoscopic liver surgery seems to be a feasible approach for various kinds of liver diseases.

Absorbable polymeric surgical clips for appendicular stump closure: A randomized control trial of laparoscopic appendectomy with lapro-clips

A randomized control trial was performed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of absorbable polymeric clips for appendicular stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Patients were randomly enrolled into an experimental group (ligation of the appendicular base with Lapro-Clips, L-C group) or control group (ligation of the appendicular base with Hem-o-lok Clips, H-C group). We identified 1,100 patients who underwent LA between April 1, 2012 and February 3, 2015. Overall, 99 patients (9.0%, 99/1,100) developed a complication following LA (47 [8.5%] in the L-C group and 52 [9.5%] in the H-C group (P = 0.598). No statistically significant differences were observed in intra-abdominal abscesses, stump leakage, superficial wound infections, post-operative abdominal pain, overall adverse events, or the duration of the operations and hospital stays between the groups (all p > 0.05). Adverse risk factors associated with the use of absorbable clips in LA included body mass index ≥ 27.5 kg/m2, diabetes, American Society of Anesthesiologists degree ≥ III, gangrenous appendicitis, severe inflammation of the appendix base, appendix perforation, and the absence of peritoneal drainage. The results indicate that the Lapro-Clip is a safe and effective device for closing the appendicular stump in LA in select patients with appendicitis.

Multicenter, randomized single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery (SIMPLE) trial in colon cancer: an interim analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) was recently introduced as an innovative minimally invasive surgery method. Retrospective studies have revealed the safety and feasibility of SPLS for colon cancer treatment. However, no prospective randomized trials have been performed. The multicenter, randomized SIMPLE (single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery) trial aimed to investigate short-term perioperative outcomes of SPLS for colon cancer treatment, compared with multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS).

METHODS

Between August 2011 and April 2014, a total of 194 patients with colon cancer were recruited from seven hospitals in Korea. Patients were randomly allocated into the SPLS group (n = 99) or MPLS group (n = 95). The primary endpoint was postoperative complications. Operative, postoperative, and pathologic outcomes were analyzed after 50% of the patient study population had been recruited.

RESULTS

The patients' demographic characteristics, operative times, estimated blood volume losses, numbers of harvested lymph nodes, and lengths of both resection margins were not significantly different between groups. In the SPLS group, the rates of conversion to MPLS and open surgery were 12.9 and 2.2%, respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 10.8% of the SPLS, and 12.5% of the MPLS patients (p = 0.714). Times to functional recovery, pain scores, and amounts of analgesia were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this interim analysis suggested that SPLS is technically safe and appropriate when used for radical resection of colon cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01480128).

The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses on the clinical outcome after laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not revealed any major differences in postoperative pain between the two procedures. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the difference in postoperative pain between the two procedures, focusing on whether LESS was conducted with a non-expanding port (LESSnonex) or a port expanding (LESSex) within the incision.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on LESS versus CLS for general abdominal procedures. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs with 2999 procedures were included. Pain (VAS 0-10) 6 h after surgery was significantly lower in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSnonex compared to CLS, WMD=-0.72 (- 1.10 to - 0.33). Pain 18-24 h was significantly higher in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSex compared to CLS, WMD = 0.38 (0.01-0.75). Wound-related complications were significantly more frequent in LESSex procedures compared to CLS, OR = 1.94 (1.03-3.63).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indirectly indicates that the type of access device that is used for an abdominal LESS procedure may contribute to the development of early postoperative pain as the use of a non-expanding model was associated with a more advantageous outcome. Direct randomized comparison of LESSnonex and LESSex is warranted to confirm if the use of expanding access devices generates more pain and wound complications.

Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery

BACKGROUND

The evidence for treatment decision-making in emergency general surgery has not been summarized previously. The aim of this overview was to review the quantity and quality of systematic review evidence for the most common emergency surgical conditions.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of the most common conditions requiring unplanned admission and treatment managed by general surgeons were eligible for inclusion. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched to April 2014. The number and type (randomized or non-randomized) of included studies and patients were extracted and summarized. The total number of unique studies was recorded for each condition. The nature of the interventions (surgical, non-surgical invasive or non-invasive) was documented. The quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist.

RESULTS

The 106 included reviews focused mainly on bowel conditions (42), appendicitis (40) and gallstone disease (17). Fifty-one (48·1 per cent) included RCTs alone, 79 (74·5 per cent) included at least one RCT and 25 (23·6 per cent) summarized non-randomized evidence alone. Reviews included 727 unique studies, of which 30·3 per cent were RCTs. Sixty-five reviews compared different types of surgical intervention and 27 summarized trials of surgical versus non-surgical interventions. Fifty-seven reviews (53·8 per cent) were rated as low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

This overview of reviews highlights the need for more and better research in this field.

Single center cost analysis of single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgical treatment in colorectal malignant diseases

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Single-port laparoscopy (SPL) is a relatively new technique, used in various procedures. There is limited knowledge about the cost effectiveness and the learning curve of this technique. The primary aim of this study was to compare hospital costs between SPL and conventional laparoscopic resections (CLR) for colorectal cancer; the secondary aim was to identify a learning curve of SPL.

METHODS

All elective colorectal cancer SPL and CLR performed in a major teaching hospital between 2011 and 2012 that were registered in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were included (n = 267). The economic evaluation was conducted from a hospital perspective, and costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methodology up to 90 days after discharge. When looking at SPL only, the introduction year (2011) was compared to the next year (2012).

RESULTS

SPL (n = 78) was associated with lower mortality, lower reintervention rates, and more complications as compared to CLR (n = 189); however, none of these differences were statistically significant. A significant shorter operating time was seen in the SPL. Total costs were higher for SPL group as compared to CLR; however, this difference was not statistically significant. For the SPL group, most clinical outcomes improved between 2011 and 2012; moreover, total hospital costs for SPL in 2012 became comparable to CLR.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences in financial outcomes between SPL and CLR were identified. After the introduction period, SPL showed similar results as compared to CLR. Conclusions are based on a small single-port group and the conclusions of this manuscript should be an impetus for further research.

The Role of the Single Incision Laparoscopic Approach in Liver and Pancreatic Resectional Surgery

Introduction. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained increasing support over the last few years. The aim of this narrative review is to analyse the published evidence on the use and potential benefits of SILS in hepatic and pancreatic resectional surgery for benign and malignant pathology. Methods. Pubmed and Embase databases were searched using the search terms “single incision laparoscopic”, “single port laparoscopic”, “liver surgery”, and “pancreas surgery”. Results. Twenty relevant manuscripts for liver and 9 for pancreatic SILS resections were identified. With regard to liver surgery, despite the lack of comparative studies with other minimal invasive techniques, outcomes have been acceptable when certain limitations are taken into account. For pancreatic resections, when compared to the conventional laparoscopic approach, SILS produced comparable results with regard to intra- and postoperative parameters, including length of hospitalisation and complications. Similarly, the results were comparable to robotic pancreatectomies, with the exception of the longer operative time reported with the robotic approach. Discussion. Despite the limitations, the published evidence supports that SILS is safe and feasible for liver and pancreatic resections when performed by experienced teams in the tertiary setting. However, no substantial benefit has been identified yet, especially compared to other minimal invasive techniques.

Postoperative pain after conventional laparoscopic versus single-port sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic approach is the gold standard for surgical treatment of morbid obesity. The single-port (SP) approach has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective technique for the treatment of morbid obesity in several case control studies.

OBJECTIVES

Compare conventional multiport laparoscopy (LAP) with an SP approach for the treatment of morbid obesity using sleeve gastrectomy in terms of postoperative pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) 0-100, surgical outcome, weight loss, and aesthetical satisfaction at 6 months after surgery.

SETTING

University Hospital, Spain.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled pilot study. The trial enrolled patients suitable for bariatric surgery, with a body mass index lower than 50 kg/m² and xiphoumbilical distance lower than 25 cm. Patients were randomly assigned to receive LAP or SP sleeve gastrectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were enrolled; 15 were assigned to LAP group and 15 to SP group. No patients were lost during follow-up. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. A significantly higher level of pain during movement was noted for the patients in the LAP group on the first (mean VAS 49.3±12.2 versus 34.1±8.9, P = .046) and second days (mean VAS 35.9±10.2 versus 22.1±7.9, P = .044) but not the third day (mean VAS 20.1±5.2 versus 34.12.9 ±4.3, P = .620). No differences regarding pain at rest, operative time, complications, or weight loss at 6 months were observed. Higher aesthetical satisfaction was noticed in SP group.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, SP surgery presented less postoperative pain in sleeve gastrectomy compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach with similar surgical results.

Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.

Glove port, how do we do it? A low-cost alternative to the single-port approach

BACKGROUND

The need for cosmetic results in our society and the necessity of an early recovery have promoted the development of minimally invasive techniques, including single-port approach. Some studies have tried to demonstrate the advantages of this access compared with conventional laparoscopic approach. This type of approach requires a high-cost multi-port device, so that some surgeons have tried to create a low-cost homemade device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With this video we intend to show how to build a glove port, a low-cost alternative for the approach by a single port.

CONCLUSIONS

A glove port is a cost effective approach that could be use instead of multi-port device.

Interventions to optimize recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

No enhanced recovery after surgery protocol has been published for laparoscopic appendectomy. This was a review of evidence-based interventions that could optimize recovery after appendectomy.

METHODS

Interventions for the review Clinical pathway, fast-track or enhanced recovery protocols; needlescopic approach; single incision laparoscopic (SIL) approach; natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES); regional nerve blocks; intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA); drains. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science Core Collection. Study eligibility criteria Randomized controlled trial (RCT); prospective evaluation with historical controls for studies assessing clinical pathways/protocols. Participants People undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Study appraisal and synthesis methods Meta-analysis, random effects model.

RESULTS

Clinical pathways for laparoscopic appendectomy were safe in selected patients, but may be associated with a higher readmission rate. Needlescopic surgery offered no recovery advantage over traditional laparoscopic appendectomy. SIL afforded no recovery advantage over conventional laparoscopic surgery, but may increase operative time in children. The search found no RCT on NOTES appendectomy. Transversus abdominis plane blocks did not significantly reduce pain after laparoscopic appendectomy. IPLA should be considered in laparoscopic appendectomy; studies in paediatric surgery are needed. The search found no RCT on the use of drains in appendectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified gaps in the literature on optimizing recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy and found the need for more randomized controlled trials on regional anaesthesia and intraperitoneal local anaesthesia in children.

Advances in Laparoscopic Surgery

Recently, a new platform of abdominal access, called single-port surgery, has emerged in human and veterinary laparoscopy. The single-port platform enables all laparoscopic instruments, including the telescope, to pass individually through the same abdominal incision. Recently, there have been several published reports documenting the efficacy and safety of single-port procedures in veterinary patients. This article discusses the common single-port devices and instrumentation, as well as procedures now routinely offered in veterinary minimally invasive surgery.

Feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy in a small hospital

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) for the treatment of acute appendicitis and to assess the feasibility of performing SILA in a small hospital with limited surgical instruments and staff experience.

METHODS

Retrospective record review identified 133 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy from December 2013 to April 2015. Patients were categorized according to the type of appendectomy performed (SILA or CLA). Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Postoperative complication rates were compared using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analog scale immediately postsurgery; at 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours postoperatively, and at 7 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

Record review identified 38 patients who had undergone SILA and 95 patients who had undergone CLA. No significant differences in clinical characteristics were found between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in operation time, time to flatus, or length of hospital stay. Overall complication rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups. No complications worse than grade IIIa occurred in the SILA group. Postoperative pain scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups at any time point.

CONCLUSION

We found comparable surgical outcomes for SILA compared to CLA. Even in a small hospital with limited surgical instruments and staff experience, SILA may be a feasible and safe technique.

Experience of single-incision laparoscopy in children

CONTEXT

Laparoscopic surgery is commonly used for the treatment of many pediatric surgical diseases at our department. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is well-known for its cosmetic benefit. We, hereby, present our experience of SILS and evaluate its efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From July 2012 to June 2014, 78 patients aged less than 18 years who underwent SILS were retrospectively evaluated. There were 44 males and 34 females, with a mean age of 10.3 years. The procedures included appendectomy (n = 64), reduction of intussusception (n = 8), removal of an intestinal foreign body (n = 3), and Meckel's diverticulectomy (n = 3). We compared the patients who underwent SILS with those who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), regarding these procedures. The parameters for analysis included the patient's demographic data, surgical indication, complications, operative time, and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

SILS is comparable to CLS regarding two major procedures, namely, appendectomy and reduction of intussusception. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the patients' demographic data, complications, and length of hospital stay. According to our experience of SILS, it could be a feasible and safe procedure for the treatment of various pediatric surgical diseases. However, large prospective randomized studies are needed to identify the differences between SIL and CLS.

Efficacy and safety of a new single-port model for appendectomy: Experimental study on swine

CONTEXT:

With the cooperation of surgeons and the engineering division of the company Bhio supply^© (Esteio-RS, Brazil), a permanent single port was developed.

AIMS:

An experimental study assessed the safety and efficacy of the device using a swine laparoscopic appendectomy model (right salpingo-oophorectomy).

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

Experimental randomised study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A total of 20 pigs were randomised for the conventional laparoscopic (CL) three-trocar technique or the single Centry port (CPort) with two working channels, aided by a transparietal thread. Operative times, surgical complications, CO₂ use, and pneumoperitoneal pressure were checked. Pressure and chromopertubation tests assessed the ligatures.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

For quantitative outcomes, the Fisher's exact test analysed the samples to compare the surgeons in each group, the ANOVA test for parametric data (volume and pressure) and the Student's t-test for analysis of the fascial incision length. The binaries and isolated occurrence events were described in percentages.

RESULTS:

For all cases, pneumoperitoneum was maintained. The CPort group, however, resulted in higher CO₂ use (26.18 l; standard deviation [SD] ± 11.09) than CL group (5.69 l; SD ± 2.44) (P < 0.01). The mean pressure in CPort group (6.604 mmHg, SD ± 1.793) was comparatively lower than in CL group (7.382 mmHg, SD ± 1.833) (P = 0.363). There was no statistical difference between operative times, ligature safety or adverse surgical events between the different groups and surgeons.

CONCLUSION:

The surgical technique used with the single port showed no differences in safety and efficacy. Though it does require more CO₂ use, its working dynamics did not lead to increased operative times. The results were similar between the two surgeons in the study, suggesting that they can be reproduced.

Task performance in standard laparoscopy in comparison with single-incision laparoscopy in a modified skills trainer

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) is similar to conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP), but carries specific technical challenges due to lack of triangulation, reduced dexterity, conflicts due to inline instrumentation, and impaired visualization. This study was designed to evaluate technical skill performance of SIL versus LAP surgery in a simulated environment.

METHODS

We developed a modified laparoscopic skills trainer for SIL based upon the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) model. This includes a standard laparoscopic tower for visualization, allowing replication of the conflicts between scope and instruments. It also has a modified trainer box allowing use of different access devices and instruments for SIL. Sixteen subjects at different levels of training (novice through expert) completed four FLS tasks with standard LAP techniques. They then practiced the same tasks using SIL technique until they reached a steady state of performance. The first and last SIL trials were recorded.

RESULTS

Baseline SIL peg transfer was worse than FLS (254 ± 157 s vs 99 ± 27, p < 0.0002). Final SIL time was still significantly worse than FLS (173 ± 130, p < 0.02). FLS, baseline SIL, and final SIL circle cutting were not significantly different (p = 0.058). Final SIL loop ligation was significantly faster than FLS (48 ± 19 vs 70 ± 42, p < 0.05). FLS suturing was faster than SIL suturing (281 ± 188 vs. 526 ± 105, p < 0.01). There was substantial dropout due to frustration with SIL, and only two surgeons were able to successfully complete SIL suturing.

CONCLUSIONS

There are technical challenges with SIL that vary depending on task. Peg transfer and suturing were significantly impaired in SIL, while circle cutting was not significantly affected, and ligating loop was faster with SIL than LAP. These challenges may impact clinical outcomes of SIL and should influence training in SIL as well as future product development.

Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review

AIM: To review current applications of the laparoscopic surgery while highlighting the standard procedures across different fields.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken using the PubMed Advanced Search Builder. A total of 321 articles were found in this search. The following criteria had to be met for the publication to be selected: Review article, randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses discussing the subject of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, publications were hand-searched in the Cochrane database and the high-impact journals. A total of 82 of the findings were included according to matching the inclusion criteria. Overall, 403 full-text articles were reviewed. Of these, 218 were excluded due to not matching the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 185 relevant articles were identified matching the search criteria for an overview of the current literature on the laparoscopic surgery. Articles covered the period from the first laparoscopic application through its tremendous advancement over the last several years. Overall, the biggest advantage of the procedure has been minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery. In the case of cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and adrenalectomy, the procedure has become the gold standard without being proven as a superior technique over the open surgery in randomized controlled trials. Faster recovery, reduced hospital stay, and a quicker return to normal activities are the most evident advantages of the laparoscopic surgery. Positive outcomes, efficiency, a lower rate of wound infections, and reduction in the perioperative morbidity of minimally invasive procedures have been shown in most indications.

CONCLUSION: Improvements in surgical training and developments in instruments, imaging, and surgical techniques have greatly increased safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic surgical procedures.

A Novel and Scarless Laparoscopic Appendectomy Technique: Two Ports in a Single Incision Plus One Puncture Without Trocar

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SILS-A) is now being performed in a great number of patients. However, SILS-A requires extended operation time and does not markedly decrease postoperative pain or improve cosmesis. To solve these problems, we developed a new technique for laparoscopic appendectomy that relies on 2 ports in a single incision plus 1 puncture (POP-SILS), and we can prove that this useful technique allows SILS-A to be easier and more cosmetic. The cases of 112 patients treated by laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) at our hospital between 2010 and 2013 were studied retrospectively. Forty-one were cases of locally complicated appendicitis, and 71 were cases of simple appendicitis. In laparoscopic appendectomy with POP-SILS, we maintain instrument triangulation using two 5-mm ports in the umbilicus and needle instruments that are introduced by puncture above the pubic bone. We studied the safety and usefulness of this method from the standpoint of operation time, postoperative stay, and complications. From 2010 to 2013, we performed 77 POP-SILS-LAs. Thirty-five patients required 1 or more additional ports or underwent conventional LA. The time required for POP-SILS-LA was 54 minutes (range, 23–209) in cases of simple appendicitis. Even in 17 cases of locally complicated appendicitis, POP-SILS-LA was successful. There was no statistical difference in surgical complications between POP-SILS-LA and multiport LA. Both the umbilical scar and the puncture scar eventually became invisible. The outcomes in our patient series showed POP-SILS-LA to be a safe and beneficial, minimally invasive approach to laparoscopic appendectomy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in children

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence has indicated that single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) is a safe procedure that has a comparable clinical outcome to conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in adult patients. Nevertheless, the use of SILA in pediatric patients is still controversial, and systematic reviews that compare SILA and CLA in children are lacking in the current literature.

METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed to identify eligible studies that were conducted between January 1998 and September 2014. Primary outcome measures were total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, ileus, and wound hematoma. Secondary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay and the frequency of use of additional analgesics. The random effect model was used for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 2 randomized clinical trials and 12 nonrandomized clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. These studies included a total of 2249 patients: 744 who underwent SILA and 1505 who underwent CLA. No significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to the incidence of total postoperative complications, intraabdominal abscess, ileus, wound hematoma, length of hospital stay, or the frequency of use of additional analgesics. However, SILA was associated with a higher incidence of wound infection (OR=2.25; 95%=1.21-4.17; P=0.01) compared with CLA and required a longer operative time (WMD=5.73 minutes; 95% CI=4.17-7.28; P<0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

SILA seems to be a relatively feasible and safe procedure without any superiority to CLA. Thus, SILA may not be a better approach for pediatric patients.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialities. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera e.g. the bowel or bladder, or to vasculature e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels. Minor complications can also occur, such as postoperative wound infection, subcutaneous emphysema, and extraperitoneal insufflation. There is no clear consensus as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

This updated review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. In addition, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO were searched through to September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which one laparoscopic entry technique was compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 46 RCTs including three multi-arm trials (7389 participants) and evaluated 13 laparoscopic entry techniques. Overall there was no evidence of advantage using any single technique for preventing major vascular or visceral complications. The evidence was generally of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Open-entry versus closed-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). There was a lower risk of failed entry in the open-entry group (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63, n = 665, two RCTs, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 31 patients in the closed-entry group will have failed entry compared to between 1 to 20 patients in the open-entry group. No events were reported in any of the studies for mortality, gas embolism or solid organ injury. Direct trocar versus Veress needle entry There was a lower risk of vascular injury in the direct trocar group (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.66, five RCTs, n = 1522, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence) and failed entry (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30, seven RCTs, n = 3104; I ²= 0%; moderate quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 8 patients in the Veress needle group will experience vascular injury compared to between 0 to 5 patients in the direct trocar group; and that 64 patients in the Veress needle group will experience failed entry compared to between 10 to 20 patients in the direct trocar group. The vascular injury significance is sensitive to choice of statistical analysis and may be unreliable. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for visceral (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.24, four RCTs, n = 1438, I(2) = 49%; very low quality evidence) or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.16, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.53, two RCTs, n = 998, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence). No events were recorded for mortality or gas embolism. Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34, one RCT, n = 194; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Direct vision entry versus open-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50, two RCTs, n = 392; low quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67, one RCT, n = 60, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09, one RCT, n = 60; low quality evidence). Vascular injury was reported, however no events occurred. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocars There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = n/a; low quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91, one RCT, n = 244; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Comparisons of other laparoscopic entry techniquesThere was a higher risk of failed entry in the group in which the abdominal wall was lifted before Veress needle insertion than in the not-lifted group (Peto OR 4.44, 95% CI 2.16 to 9.13, one RCT, n = 150; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of visceral injury or extraperitoneal insufflation. The studies had small numbers and excluded many patients with previous abdominal surgery, and women with a raised body mass index. These patients may have unusually high complication rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one laparoscopic entry technique over another.An open-entry technique is associated with a reduction in failed entry when compared to a closed-entry technique, with no evidence of a difference in the incidence of visceral or vascular injury.An advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry was noted for failed entry and vascular injury. The evidence was generally of very low quality with small numbers of participants in most studies; our findings should be interpreted with caution.

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A non-randomized, age-matched single center trial

AIM: To compare the safety of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies with standard four-port cholecystectomies.

METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2012 datas were gathered from 100 consecutive patients who received a single-port cholecystectomy. Patient baseline characteristics of all 100 single-port cholecystectomies were collected (body mass index, age, etc.) in a database. This group was compared with 100 age-matched patients who underwent a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the same period. Retrospectively, per- and postoperative data were added. The two groups were compared to each other using independent t-tests and χ²-tests, P values below 0.05 were considered significantly different.

RESULTS: No differences were found between both groups regarding baseline characteristics. Operating time was significantly shorter in the total single-port group (42 min vs 62 min, P < 0.05); in procedures performed by surgeons the same trend was seen (45 min vs 59 min, P < 0.05). Peroperative complications between both groups were equal (3 in the single-port group vs 5 in the multiport group; P = 0.42). Although not significant less postoperative complications were seen in the single-port group compared with the multiport group (3 vs 9; P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were found between both groups with regard to length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality.

CONCLUSION: Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has the potential to be a safe technique with a low complication rate, short in-hospital stay and comparable operating time. Single-port cholecystectomy provides the patient an almost non-visible scar while preserving optimal quality of surgery. Further prospective studies are needed to prove the safety of the single-port technique.

The TICAP-Study (titanium clips for appendicular stump closure): A prospective multicentre observational study on appendicular stump closure with an innovative titanium clip

Background

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the DS Titanium Ligation Clip for appendicular stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy.

Methods

Overall, 502 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy were recruited for this observational multicentre study in nine study centres between October 2011 and July 2013. The clip was finally applied in 390 patients. Primary outcome variables were feasibility of the clip, intra-abdominal surgical site (abscesses, stump leakages) and superficial wound infections. Patients were followed 30 days after surgery.

Results

The clip was applicable in nearly 80 % of patients. Reasons for not applying the clip were mainly an inflamed caecum or a too large diameter of the appendix base. Superficial wound infections were found in nine (2.31 %), intra-abdominal abscesses in five (1.28 %), appendicular stump leak in one (0.26 %), and other adverse events in 22 (5.64 %) patients. In total, 12 (3.08 %) patients were re-admitted to hospital for treatment. Seven re-admissions were surgery-related; ten (2.56 %) patients had to be re-operated. One patient died during the course of the study due to persisting peritonitis (mortality 0.26 %).

Conclusions

The results suggest that the DS Titanium Ligation Clip is a safe and effective option in securing the appendicular stump in laparoscopic appendectomy. The complication rates found with the use of the DS-Clip are comparable to the rates in the literature when other methods are used.

Trial Registration

NCT01734837.

Past, Present, and Future of Minimally Invasive Abdominal Surgery

Laparoscopic surgery has generated a revolution in operative medicine during the past few decades. Although strongly criticized during its early years, minimization of surgical trauma and the benefits of minimization to the patient have been brought to our attention through the efforts and vision of a few pioneers in the recent history of medicine. The German gynecologist Kurt Semm (1927-2003) transformed the use of laparoscopy for diagnostic purposes into a modern therapeutic surgical concept, having performed the first laparoscopic appendectomy, inspiring Erich Mühe and many other surgeons around the world to perform a wide spectrum of procedures by minimally invasive means. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy soon became the gold standard, and various laparoscopic procedures are now preferred over open approaches, in the light of emerging evidence that demonstrates less operative stress, reduced pain, and shorter convalescence. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) may be considered further steps toward minimization of surgical trauma, although these methods have not yet been standardized. Laparoscopic surgery with the use of a robotic platform constitutes a promising field of investigation. New technologies are to be considered under the prism of the history of surgery; they seem to be a step toward further minimization of surgical trauma, but not definite therapeutic modalities. Patient safety and medical ethics must be the cornerstone of future investigation and implementation of new techniques.

Single-site laparoscopic appendectomy in children using conventional instruments: a prospective, randomized, control trial

PURPOSE

Single-site laparoscopic surgery (SSLS) is still only used in limited situations to treat children with appendicitis. Using conventional laparoscopic (CL) equipment to perform SSLS appendectomy is considered a valuable application in China. This prospective randomized trial aims to evaluate the surgical outcome of SSLS and CL appendectomy using CL equipment.

METHODS

Sixty patients were recruited and randomly assigned to receive SSLS or 3-port CL appendectomy between February 2011 and June 2013. Each case of SSLS appendectomy was performed using CL instruments. Surgery outcomes, including operative time, conversion rates, postoperative complications, hospital stays, and hospital costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between groups. The SSLS using CL instruments was successful in all the 30 patients and no conversions occurred. Mean operative time was longer in the SSLS group than the CL group (64.3 ± 3.1 vs 53.0 ± 2.9 min, respectively; p = 0.000). Complication rates, lengths of hospital stay, and hospital costs were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study demonstrate that using conventional instruments to perform SSLS is technically feasible and safe in children. Although SSLS appendectomy does increase the operative time, it does not increase the complication rate and hospital cost.

Advances in reduced port laparoscopic liver resection

Reduced port surgery has been attracting attention in the field of minimally invasive surgery. Although the use of SILS is becoming widespread, technical difficulty has delayed its adoption for laparoscopic liver resection. Recently, advances in laparoscopic liver resection have been made in tandem with advances in surgical skill and devices. The main driver in conventional laparoscopic liver resection's evolution to become less surgically invasive seems to be single-incision laparoscopic liver resection (SILLR). To date, most reports on SILLR have been single case reports or case series. Only a few cohort studies on conventional laparoscopic surgery and SILLR have been conducted. Recent reports have described the use of SILLR for well-localized lesions and solitary tumors located in the anterolateral segments of the liver or left liver lobe, but its application remains limited to partial resection and left lateral sectionectomy. The feasibility and safety of SILLR have been demonstrated, but additional work is needed for standardization of the procedure.

Staging lymphadenectomy in patients with localized high risk prostate cancer: comparison of the laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) technique with conventional multiport laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

In patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer awaiting radiation therapy, pelvic lymphadenectomy (PL) is a reliable minimally invasive staging procedure. We compared outcomes after laparoendoscopic single site PL (LESSPL) with those after conventional multiport laparoscopic PL (MLPL).

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was carried out at the authors' center. For LESSPL the reusable X-Cone single port was combined with straight and prebent laparoscopic instruments and an additional 3 mm needlescopic grasper. MLPL was performed via four trocars of different sizes using standard laparoscopic instruments.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent either LESSPL (n = 20) or MLPL (n = 97) between January 2008 and July 2013, were included in the study. Demographic data were comparable between groups. Patients in the LESSPL group tended to be older and had a significantly higher ASA-score. The mean operating time was 172.4 ± 34.1 min for LESSPL and 116.6 ± 40.1 min for MLPL (P < .001). During LESSPL, no conversion to MLPL was necessary. An average of 12 lymph nodes per patient was retrieved, with no significant difference between study groups. Postoperative pain scores were similar between groups. The hospital stay was 2.3 ± 0.7 days after LESSPL and 3.1 ± 1.2 days after MLPL (P = .01). Two days postoperatively, significantly more patients after LESSPL than after MLPL recovered their normal physical activity (P < .001). Six months postoperatively, no complications were registered in the LESSPL group and cosmetic results were excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, shorter hospitalization and quicker postoperative recovery were major benefits of LESSPL over MLPL. In patients with localized prostate cancer, staging LESS pelvic lymphadenectomy may be a safe alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopy.

Single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic appendectomy: a case-matched comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

The multiport technique is the gold standard for laparoscopic appendectomy, but the use of single-incision laparoscopy is on the increase. The aim of the present study was to compare case-matched cohorts of patients who had undergone single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) with those who had undergone conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA).

METHODS

In a case-matched analysis, all single-incision laparoscopic appendectomies performed between July 2009 and December 2013 at one institution were reviewed and compared to multiport laparoscopic appendectomies performed during the same period. Patients who had undergone SILA were matched in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores with the same number of patients who had undergone MLA. Statistical evaluation included the description and comparison of demographic factors, details of surgery, and histological data. A univariate analysis was performed to assess potential risk factors for morbidity after SILA.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six patients who had undergone SILA were reviewed, matched, and compared to the same number of patients who had undergone MLA. No significant difference was noted in mean operating times (50.83 vs. 50.61 min for SILA and MLA, respectively; p = 0.924) and the length of hospital stay (3.60 vs. 3.66 days; p = 0.704). No patient in either group required conversion to the open procedure while 6 (3.8 %) SILA patients were converted to multiport laparoscopy. SILA was not associated with significantly higher postoperative morbidity compared to MLA (9.6 % vs. 5.8 %; p = 0.288). Postoperative wound infection rates were higher after SILA (3.2 % vs. 0.6 %), but did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.214). Statistical analysis revealed no risk factors for developing postoperative complications after the single-incision procedure.

CONCLUSION

SILA is a technically feasible and safe alternative to conventional MLA. The two procedures did not differ in terms of operating times, length of hospital stay, and postoperative outcomes.

Minimal access laparoscopic surgery for treatment of ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis coli in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy is standard surgical treatment for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis coli (FAP). Scar burden can be minimized by reducing the number of laparoscopic ports. The aim of this study is to review the authors' experience with reduced-port laparoscopy in this setting and to compare it with conventional laparoscopy using multiple ports.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Charts of pediatric patients undergoing colectomy for UC or FAP between 2009 and 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who had the operation performed through one or two multichannel ports were assigned to the minimal access (MA) study group. Patients who had four or five single-channel ports with or without an additional small laparotomy were assigned to the LAP group.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were identified. Ages at first operation were 2-18 years (median, 13.5 years). There were no conversions to laparotomy and no mortality. Mean operative times for the MA and LAP groups, respectively, were 250 and 284 minutes for abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy (P=.15), 198 and 301 minutes for completion proctectomy with diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) (P=.26), and 455 and 414 minutes for proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and DLI (P=.72). A major complication requiring laparotomy occurred in 1 patient (9%) in the MA group and in 2 patients (18%) in the LAP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal access laparoscopic surgery for UC and FAP is safe and feasible. A slightly larger incision at the ostomy site facilitates extraction of the specimen and extracorporeal construction of a J-pouch. Operative times and hospital stay are comparable to those with multiport laparoscopy.

Consumer demand for surgical innovation: a systematic review of public perception of NOTES

BACKGROUND

The full scope of benefits offered by NOTES over traditional laparoscopy, if any, is not yet fully clear. Perceived patient demand for truly "scarless surgery" is often referenced one of the driving factors in the continued development of this relatively new technique. The true scale of patient preference and demand for NOTES as a surgical technique is unknown. This review aims to summarise currently available literature on the topic of patient perceptions of NOTES to guide future development of the technique.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases was performed on 1st Jan 2014. To be considered for inclusion, articles were required to assess and report the perception of NOTES in a sample of laypersons (patients or general public). The primary endpoint assessed was acceptance or preference rates expressed by patients for NOTES procedures. Reasons given for preference or rejection of NOTES were recorded, as well as preferred access routes and any predicting factors of NOTES acceptance.

RESULTS

Initial search returned 1,334 results, resulting in 15 articles included in final data synthesis. These polled a total of 4,420 subjects. Acceptance of NOTES ranged between 41 and 84 %. Compared to a laparoscopic approach, preference rates for NOTES ranged from 0 to 78 %. Reasons for preferring NOTES were largely centred on potentially reduced recovery time, complications (particularly with reference to hernias) and postoperative pain. Improved cosmesis also played a role, but was secondary to the above issues. Overall, study quality was poor.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests significant public interest in NOTES and scarless surgery in general. Further research and consideration of differences in public perceptions across regions, countries and cultures are required.

SMA Syndrome Treated by Single Incision Laparoscopic Duodenojejunostomy

Superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome is a mechanical duodenal obstruction by the SMA. The traditional approach to SMA syndrome was open bypass surgery. Nowadays, a conventional approach has been replaced by laparoscopic surgery. But single incision laparoscopic approach for SMA syndrome is rare. Herein, we report the first case of SMA syndrome patient who was treated by single incision laparoscopic duodenojejunostomy.